Background

• Pet Planet Franchise Corp. sought an injunction against 1676000 Alberta Ltd. and 2007513 Alberta Ltd. (the “Defendant Companies”), former franchisees, to prevent them from operating competing pet supply stores.
• The application was scheduled for February 21, 2023, but adjourned due to the Defendants filing eight affidavits.
• Further disputes arose over questioning and objections to affidavits, leading to a hearing in September 2023, where most undertakings were deemed irrelevant.
• Pet Planet later sold its business in June 2024, and the Defendant Companies ceased operations around the same time.

Defendant Companies’ Position

• Sought recovery of legal fees and disbursements, totaling $277,122.
• Argued that Schedule C costs were insufficient and requested 40-50% indemnity, citing the serious nature of the claim.
• Claimed that Pet Planet’s litigation was inefficient and ultimately abandoned, warranting enhanced costs.

Pet Planet’s Position

• Asserted that a 50% cost reduction under Schedule C, Column 1 should apply.
• Contended that no party was successful since the injunction was abandoned.
• Argued that the Defendant Companies unnecessarily complicated the case with excessive filings and sought a cost review by an assessment officer.

Court’s Decision

• Found that Pet Planet initiated and abandoned the litigation, justifying costs to the Defendants.
• Acknowledged procedural inefficiencies on both sides but held that Pet Planet’s actions significantly increased costs.
• Awarded the Defendant Companies a lump-sum cost of $75,000 (approx. 25% of their legal fees), payable within 30 days.

Key Takeaways

• Courts assess litigation conduct when awarding costs.
• A withdrawn claim does not absolve cost liability.
• Lump-sum costs avoid prolonged cost assessments.